Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science? - Think Atheist2015-03-04T00:56:38Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/is-your-trust-in-science-based-on-faith-or-based-on-science?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1304265&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=no@Bob - By which adults? What…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-16:1982180:Comment:13523572013-07-16T01:28:37.449ZSuzanne Olson-Hydehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Suzanne
<p>@Bob - By which adults? What sort of contraception? Do they have any prior medical conditions? For what purpose?</p>
<p>An adult, is an adult, is an adult! Of legal age in their respective countries, to give consent, to vote, to drive, etc. etc.</p>
<p>What sort of contraception - As an Adult, it is their choice, not the dogma of a particular, in this case, the catholic church, of an unmarried pope, who does not bare the cost of either having a child, or feeding a child. In the meantime,…</p>
<p>@Bob - By which adults? What sort of contraception? Do they have any prior medical conditions? For what purpose?</p>
<p>An adult, is an adult, is an adult! Of legal age in their respective countries, to give consent, to vote, to drive, etc. etc.</p>
<p>What sort of contraception - As an Adult, it is their choice, not the dogma of a particular, in this case, the catholic church, of an unmarried pope, who does not bare the cost of either having a child, or feeding a child. In the meantime, third world countries are having more children than they can feed, and clothe. Forget education, that doesn't even come into the equation.</p>
<p>Do they have any prior medical conditions? - Last time I looked, one doesn't need to go to a doctor for condoms- which the catholic church bans.</p>
<p>For what purpose? To have the children they can feed, clothe and educate. It is an adults choice to use contraception - for whatever reason they see fit for their family - nobody elses.</p>
<p>It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.</p>
<p>Not in Australia - the majority of children who were raped were from wealthy white families, boarding schools, away on camps, after lessons, in the priests private rooms, when everybody is asleep.</p>
<p>Third world countries have yet to be hit to the extent that white countries were hit by these dregs of humanity - now that pedophile priests have to move out of white societies, 'cause white societies are now aware of the extent of these crimes, and how they were hidden and covered up, they will go to third world countries, for example, Ethiopia - where the families are poor, and to be able to go to heaven, they have to give the church part of the money from their crops - which goes to the priest, who also has a cook, a cleaner, a house and a driver, as people come real cheap in these countries. I have a Filipino friend, an ex priest who is now an Atheist - he was in a poor area - but still had the accruements befitting a man of the 'stature of a priest' - he left the priesthood to marry.</p>
<p>Ah, celibacy now is the cause of pedophilia. Really? I suppose you have evidence of that? Nah.</p>
<p>There are two meanings of celibacy - In the catholic cult, celibacy is taken for granted that it only means no sex, when in fact, the other meaning is not to marry. The demons of the catholic church are women - those bloody sirens tempting these poor naive men - a priest is told not to left alone in a room with a woman, not to be enticed by a woman, to keep propriety when dealing with women etc. etc. because sex outside of marriage is a sin - therefore he must remain chaste.</p>
<p>There are many gay priests in the hierarchy of the catholic church, but this isn't a bother, they are doing no harm, adult with adult. Gay priests are balanced, and do really good work, as they have empathy, are in relationships, have human contact, all the things the average human needs.</p>
<p>Successive popes have known about the prelates in The Curia that are Gay, and did not and have not, as yet, done anything about it. Too many to just what, sack, and then it would actually be out in the open, denigrate Gays wanting to marry, etc by fobbing it off 'We don't hate Gays, we just don't like what they do", when it is exactly this, that has been going on in the Vatican. Gays went into the priesthood, hoping they would 'be cured' by praying to be cured, often by their families, and when that didn't work, they found themselves with many other Gays. Sad that they thought they may be 'cured' but Hallelujah , they found their niche, as they also, didn't want to be with women.</p>
<p>So, many heterosexual males go into the priesthood, and are turned into a stunted, inadequate, lonely male, by a system who will not have women in the hierarchy, who are told of the 'enticements of women', these men are heterosexual, so who is next on the list, who is an easy target that they can put 'The Fear of God' and will and can be forced to never speak about it - children. It is not JUST about the abuse of children, it was the systematic cover up, spending millions, if the priest was eventually forced to go to court, it is the systematic destruction of any and all incriminating papers after ten years.</p>
<p>But, after saying that, there are certainly priests who have affairs - and with those bloody women, no less. Hypocritical, yes, but at least they have a healthy attitude towards sex.</p>
<p>Certainly, there are pedophiles in other groups, they are also stunted, inadequate males who prey on children - the difference being, the catholic church breeds them, then covers up the crimes. So, while you naysay about celibacy - it will continue. Klonk.</p>
<p>The following statement is from "The Roman Catholic Faithful -</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rcf.org/docs/celibacy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rcf.org/docs/celibacy.htm</a></p>
<p>Mr. Y, a homosexual man, can only become a priest if he makes a vow of celibacy - if he vows to remain unmarried to a woman.<br/> He does not vow to remain unmarried to a man because, according to his Catholic faith, he can never marry a man - he cannot vow to give up what he cannot have in the first place.<br/>
Therefore, Mr. Y's priestly vow of celibacy is an easy, ludicrous and utterly pointless promise for him to make since he does not want to be married to a woman. (It wasn't so easy, ludicrous or utterly pointless, however, for Mr. X.)<br/>
With his priestly vow of celibacy per se he does not, as is frequently believed and wrongly reported, make a vow to refrain from sex. He makes a vow to remain unmarried. But since he has vowed to remain unmarried to a woman, and since he cannot validly “marry” another man, he is required by his Catholic faith to remain perpetually chaste - he can never have sex.<br/>
My question is how you can make any claim, when norms, and perhaps "harm" may be cultural - Are you saying the rape and abuse of children by catholic priests is 'cultural'?</p>
<p>We are talking about America - I am talking about Australia - ask the parents of these children if they consider the raping and abuse of their child is cultural - ask the children how the rape and abuse has affected them - ask the children what it is to be called a liar, ask the children if they think that "Jesus loves them, and will protect them.'</p>
<p>Klonk.</p> No, it's an arguable position…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13524222013-07-15T23:35:44.991ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<blockquote><p><span>No, it's an arguable position.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Ah. OK, thanks. I understand I think. We may be using slightly different definitions of "moral absolutist".</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>'My way' is defined by my moral convictions, not personal desire to assert myself over others.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>I had you up to this point. I will agree that law is different than morality; it's an oblique construct. It's more about…</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>No, it's an arguable position.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Ah. OK, thanks. I understand I think. We may be using slightly different definitions of "moral absolutist".</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>'My way' is defined by my moral convictions, not personal desire to assert myself over others.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>I had you up to this point. I will agree that law is different than morality; it's an oblique construct. It's more about defining/organizing efficient societal norms. "Creating" the legal/societal world we live in, as you say. </span></p>
<p><span>I didn't understand when you said passing a law (affecting others) means you got your way, and your way is defined by your moral convictions. That to me <strong>is</strong> imposing your moral convictions on others. Can you explain that some more?</span></p>
<p><span>I agree we use "wrong" in a variety of contexts, and also with varying levels of implied contingency. The long route to the grocery store may be "wrong", with the implied contingency that you want the most time efficient rather than the more scenic route. The issue in terms of morality would seem to be at what point do we <em>advocate or intervene</em> in the choices of others? We wouldn't in the case of a choice about the route to the store; we would intervene, perhaps with violent force if necessary, if someone chose to rape a child. That's the point when we are asserting that our morality is objectively true in some way. It justifies interfering with the freedom of others.</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span>There are some factors which are fairly objective.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span><span>These seem more problematic, though perhaps you're encompassing that with the "fairly."</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>From a medical perspective, anal penetrative sex is something that even adult bodies are not suited for. Are you also making an argument about gay male sex here? The bigger issue is that there are many types of molestation that don't involve penetration. To my knowledge, whether it was the ancient Greeks or the deviant modern priests, penetration was by no measure universal. I'm not even sure it applied in the majority of cases. So we're still left with the question of whether fondling, groping, and all that other stuff is OK or not.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Children who are capable of becoming pregnant are, generally speaking, perfectly well equipped biologically to deal with pregnancy. If a child is not mentally/socially prepared, then is that the society's fault? </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>That same objection would seem to apply to your other points as well. In aboriginal peoples, kids are perfectly capable of assessing risks, making choices, and all the rest. <em>Bar Mitzvahs</em> and other rights of passage into adulthood at age 12 were the norm for humanity into the industrial age. Many of our great-grandparents got married at ages that would be considered "children" now (and many of our middle school aged children are experimenting on their own without the benefit of adult guidance).</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In short, those "objective" notions seem really very culturally subjective. </span></span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span><font size="2"><span>Then why bring it up? You can speculate all you like, but if there is no path to move forward from that speculation, it's just a fun pastime, not an argument.</span></font></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span><span><font size="2"><span>Because it's an example of a cultural norm not contaminated by Judeo-Christendom. Our own notion in Western culture that this behavior is "wrong" is the product of the spread of a particular religious tradition. While we cannot make claims about individual Greek children, widespread long-term damage to children should have macro effects on Greek society, and there seems to be no evidence of that. Ancient Greece was, by most measures of "civilization", very prosperous.</span></font></span></span></p>
<p>So it's an example of a culture where no one began by assuming this is "wrong" for religious reasons, and where there's no evidence of harm. It serves therefore as an example of a possible society if we remove "Sky God" ways of thinking.</p> I don't really care what you…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13519772013-07-15T18:48:52.792ZStregahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MzStrega
<p> I don't really care what your Head of State does behind closed doors if it doesn't harm anyone. He or she can burn pungent herbs and praise Cthulhu for all I care, or dance naked to the pagan goddess of fertility. What is important, is that he or she operates in their office in accordance with his or her appointment brief. </p>
<p> I don't really care what your Head of State does behind closed doors if it doesn't harm anyone. He or she can burn pungent herbs and praise Cthulhu for all I care, or dance naked to the pagan goddess of fertility. What is important, is that he or she operates in their office in accordance with his or her appointment brief. </p> I think that saying something…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13522172013-07-15T18:22:58.657Zkris feenstrahttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KrisFeenstra
<blockquote><p><span>I think that saying something is "wrong" is at some level a moral absolutist argument, don't you think?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>No, it's an arguable position. That said, it is not an arbitrary position.</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span>It implies pretty clearly that you intend your version of morality should apply not just to yourself, but to others.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Not necessarily. My version of morality <em>could</em> apply to…</p>
<blockquote><p><span>I think that saying something is "wrong" is at some level a moral absolutist argument, don't you think?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>No, it's an arguable position. That said, it is not an arbitrary position.</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span><span>It implies pretty clearly that you intend your version of morality should apply not just to yourself, but to others.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Not necessarily. My version of morality <em>could</em> apply to others, but that doesn't mean it has to. People can entertain my arguments or reject them, but they have to reason things out for themselves.</p>
<p>If I turn to the law or to force to prohibit or promote a certain type of behaviour, I am not trying to enforce morality; I am fighting to create the sort of world I want to live in. This may result in conflict with others who see things differently than I do. If I happen to get my way, it does not infer moral superiority. It just means that I got my way. 'My way' is defined by my moral convictions, not personal desire to assert myself over others.</p>
<p>Wrong isn't strictly a matter of morality, mind you. We walk a road which forks in two. It's not wrong to take the left path. It's not wrong to take the right path. If, however, you say you want to get to the grocery store, one path is much more efficient than the other. One path is the right path to the grocery store and the other is wrong. Even if the wrong path eventually meanders to the grocery store, we wouldn't generally consider it the right path unless you modify your goal: I want to take a long meandering path to the grocery store.</p>
<blockquote><p><span>What exactly are the "intrinsic merits and faults" that you are weighing, and how do you do that weighing?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>There are some factors which are fairly objective. Exceptions may exist where harm did not occur, but the activity is embedded with certain risks:<br/></span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 13px;">A child's body is not suited for penetrative sex, especially by the anatomy of grown men or other objects or body parts of a similar size.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 13px;">Where pregnancy becomes a risk, a child is not well-equipped to deal with pregnancy</span><font style="font-size: 13px;">. </font></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">A child is not competent to assess the risks of sexually transmitted infections. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">A child has a greatly diminished capacity to consent to sexual intercourse and has marginal ability to physically repel unwanted sexual attention. </span></li>
<li><font style="font-size: 13px;">In light of the last point, the activity places the welfare of the child secondary to personal gratification, creating potential for knowingly or </font><span style="font-size: 13px;">unknowingly</span><font style="font-size: 13px;"> causing harm in a needless scenario. 'Needless' is a relative term, but until one can justify a need to interact sexually interact with children which matches or outstrips the child's welfare.</font></li>
</ul>
<blockquote><p><font size="2"><span>We really don't have any hard data on whether or how much it harmed those children [in ancient Greece].</span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2"><span>Then why bring it up? You can speculate all you like, but if there is no path to move forward from that speculation, it's just a fun pastime, not an argument. I don't care if the ancient Greeks were wrong. We can safely assume they are all long dead now. I doubt we are going to learn a great deal from what we don't know and cannot study in any depth about them.</span></font></p>
<p></p> tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13519512013-07-15T11:36:25.933ZSuzanne Olson-Hydehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Suzanne
<p></p>
<p></p> @Bob- Because children have b…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13520552013-07-15T09:31:49.975ZSuzanne Olson-Hydehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Suzanne
<p>@Bob- Because children have been raped by catholic priests in unprecedented numbers, I think it would be prudent for all priests to wear chastity belts - but who would be The Keeper of the Keys - mmm....who can one really trust????</p>
<p>@Bob- Because children have been raped by catholic priests in unprecedented numbers, I think it would be prudent for all priests to wear chastity belts - but who would be The Keeper of the Keys - mmm....who can one really trust????</p> That's all you mean by that G…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13518672013-07-15T07:30:29.999ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>That's all you mean by that Golden Rule claim? That there's mild evolutionary pressure toward cooperation in packs/tribes in higher order animals? Of course there is.</p>
<p>There's also rape. Lots and lots of rape. And violent competition for mates. Plenty of that, too. Rape is a great way to spread genetic material. It's strongly selected for in most environments. Violence does OK, too.</p>
<p>As individuals and a species, we violate the Golden Rule all the time, especially when…</p>
<p>That's all you mean by that Golden Rule claim? That there's mild evolutionary pressure toward cooperation in packs/tribes in higher order animals? Of course there is.</p>
<p>There's also rape. Lots and lots of rape. And violent competition for mates. Plenty of that, too. Rape is a great way to spread genetic material. It's strongly selected for in most environments. Violence does OK, too.</p>
<p>As individuals and a species, we violate the Golden Rule all the time, especially when we're dealing with people we identify as being outside our pack/tribe. Just look at any middle school playground. That doesn't suggest that a more universal Golden Rule is an evolutionary product.</p>
<p>I am not a Biologist, @Strega, though I do read fairly widely. I've been aware of efforts to try to explain altruism (a different, lesser claim than what you made above) through evolutionary processes, game theory, etc. It's not my field, but as an outside reader I'd say for the moment it's mostly speculative, and tends to originate in a certain scientific fringe that has an ideological interest in the question. Not the best recipe for good science.</p>
<p></p> We are not talking about pove…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13521242013-07-15T07:08:21.734ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<blockquote><p>We are not talking about poverty, and we, being well fed, and have never been raped, could not even begin comparing the two, to see which one is worse???????</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are all kinds of ways to measure that, in terms of the long-term outcomes for children. It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.</p>
<blockquote><p>Priests in these countries will also be abundant, as they will have a better…</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>We are not talking about poverty, and we, being well fed, and have never been raped, could not even begin comparing the two, to see which one is worse???????</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are all kinds of ways to measure that, in terms of the long-term outcomes for children. It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.</p>
<blockquote><p>Priests in these countries will also be abundant, as they will have a better lifestyle, with a car and driver, a cook and a cleaner, a lovely place to live, plenty of food, and get trips to the vatican, and stay in an apartment worth millions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>LOL. That's too funny. I guess you've never spent any time with priests or religious in 3rd world countries. I have. Would you like to borrow my Pinocchio clothing?</p>
<blockquote><p>That is the result of people like you, Bob, not getting involved in a change of the catholic stance of celibacy</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ah, celibacy now is the cause of pedophilia. Really? I suppose you have evidence of that? Nah.</p>
<blockquote><p>Where what is accepted - homosexuality or pedophilia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Either or both. I was raising the ancient Greek example, where such "mentoring" was normative, before us repressive Catholics got involved and changed the social norms. </p>
<p>Kids under 16 not all that long ago were considered adults. Old enough to marry, with all the penis that involves, old enough to be apprenticed out to a trade and not live at home any more. Some things are cultural. What aboriginal people do around the world after "coming of age" would be considered child abuse/endangerment here in the U.S. <em>Some</em> judgments are really just cultural. I personally don't think all are, but then I believe in a God and universal law. My question is how <strong>you</strong> can make any claim, when norms, and perhaps "harm", may just be cultural. </p>
<blockquote><p>Once again, ask the people that this affects their lives, their families lives</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm sorry, I thought you might be asking me a serious question that you wanted an answer to, not that you were just looking to rant about. Should you want a serious answer, you'll have to answer my questions. By which adults? What sort of contraception? Do they have any prior medical conditions? For what purpose?</p>
<p></p> Suzanne, not only does @Bob a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13518662013-07-15T06:47:40.286ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<blockquote><p>Suzanne, not only does @Bob approve of child rape,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This @Bob? Professor Robert?</p>
<p>While I'm sure you meant that to be some form of humor or irony (like the Pinocchio boxers), are you really sure it's the mark of an intelligent free-thinker to libel someone in that way? </p>
<blockquote><p>Suzanne, not only does @Bob approve of child rape,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This @Bob? Professor Robert?</p>
<p>While I'm sure you meant that to be some form of humor or irony (like the Pinocchio boxers), are you really sure it's the mark of an intelligent free-thinker to libel someone in that way? </p> Of course the words used at t…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-15:1982180:Comment:13518652013-07-15T06:37:39.120ZDr. Bobhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ProfessorRobert
<p>Of course the words used at the pope's installation are also just <em>tradition</em>, and the last pope to be crowned with the Tiara was 4 popes back. </p>
<p>Do you think it would be OK if we had a law that said the U.S. President, our Head of State, had to be Roman Catholic? </p>
<p></p>
<p>Of course the words used at the pope's installation are also just <em>tradition</em>, and the last pope to be crowned with the Tiara was 4 popes back. </p>
<p>Do you think it would be OK if we had a law that said the U.S. President, our Head of State, had to be Roman Catholic? </p>
<p></p>